Stop withholding evidence, judge orders Amanda Knox prosecution

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, still stalling after all these years. Forensic expert for Rome police, she handled the hotly disputed DNA pinning Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to a brutal stabbing. But she's been holding back on the paperwork since 2007. Photo: Perugia Shock.

Update: What does a U.S. DNA expert think of the prosecution’s maneuvers in the Amanda Knox case?

Yes, the prosecution in the Amanda Knox case has been withholding evidence.

We finally know the defense was right: Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, a police forensic biologist, has never delivered key paperwork about the DNA traces that pinned Knox to the murder weapon and Raffaele Sollecito, her ex-Italian boyfriend, to the crime scene. These samples, found way back in 2007, were crucial to the 2009 conviction of the two college students for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox’s British roommate.

Stefanoni testified that she found Knox’s DNA on the handle of the murder weapon and the victim’s near the tip. She also testified that she found Raffaele’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp.

Incredibly, Stefanoni still hasn’t delivered crucial paperwork that would shore up these stunning bits of evidence, even during the ongoing appeals trial for the former lovers.

Judge Pratillo Hellmann has finally said basta.

Exasperated, he sent her a handwritten note on April 14, 2011. It ordered Stefanoni to send every file requested by his independent experts, Drs. Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, from Rome’s Sapienza University. They want to trace exactly how she achieved her results in the (then) unaccredited Roman police lab. The defense has argued that the samples, found on the alleged murder weapon and a bra clasp, were either too scanty or resulted from contamination. She testified that the DNA traces were ample enough and that contamination has never occurred in the Rome crime lab.

Stefanoni has not replied to Judge Hellmann’s note.

Crime scene: After victim's body was removed. A bra clasp, originally found near the body, somehow ended up across the room, under a dirty rug, before police collected it--47 days after the murder. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni testified that she found Rafafele Sollecito's DNA on the clasp. Rudy Guede's DNA is on the bra and everywhere. Nothing else ties Raffaele to the crime scene.

She cannot be happy with the appeals trial. The hotly disputed “unassailable” DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is “toppling” under independent review, to quote the Italian press. Hellmann’s experts discovered the DNA cannot be retested. Turns out there was never enough DNA on the kitchen knife, brought to court with its own bodyguard, to determine a genetic profile suitable for an investigation–let alone to do a second test. The bra clasp rusted in police custody and carried DNA traces from at least three people. Only Raffaele is behind bars.

So the only way to determine the reliability of the DNA tests is to put Stefanoni’s methods under the microscope. How were the two samples collected? How did they come into police custody? How did they reach the Rome lab? How were they handled there? Most importantly, how exactly were the knife and bra clasp tested in the police lab, afloat with Meredith Kercher’s DNA? Can contamination really be ruled out?

As an example of how controversial Stefanoni’s results are, Dr. Greg Hampikian of the Idaho Innocence Project says the DNA nails drifter Rudy Guede, not Knox. Never invited to the flat where Kercher died, he’s never explained how his DNA ended up on the victim’s clothing, inside her body, on her handbag. He was convicted of the murder in a separate trial.

“The one piece of evidence that tied Amanda Knox to this case is a kitchen knife with such a low level of the victim’s DNA on it – and no trace of blood – that it probably represents casual or unintended transfer,” Hampikian said. “You have to look at all the evidence, and it clearly points to Rudy Guede. He is the only one identified by DNA recovered right after the murder, from the victim’s body and her possessions. Amanda Knox’s DNA is nowhere in the room where the murder occurred.”

Since the experts can’t unravel Stefanoni’s results sans the pertinent files, they’ll come to court May 21. Instead of delivering their results, they’ll ask for another 40 days. That would push hearings into July. Italian courts shut down in August, meaning we may not see a verdict until the fall.

Bra clasp: Collected 47 days after Meredith Kercher's murder, found in a new location, under a dirty rug. It's the only bit of evidence that ties Raffaele Sollecito to the crime scene.

How did we get to this place?
In November 2007, several weeks after Kercher’s sensational murder, police announced that an ordinary kitchen knife, found in Raffaele’s apartment, was the murder weapon. It had been pulled from a drawer, a police officer testified, because it was large and looked shiny. Not only did it test negative for blood, but it couldn’t have made the two smaller wounds. Any number of knives could have made the larger wound.

Worse, the police had originally said that Raffaele’s much smaller clasp knife made the wounds. They also said that only a man could have delivered the final, killing wound, because it was so forceful.

Nevertheless, Stefanoni nailed Amanda to the stabbing. She testified that she found the UW student’s DNA on the handle of the kitchen knife and Kercher’s near the tip. Since Amanda had used the knife for cooking, her DNA was not incriminating. Kercher’s was, since she’d never been to Raffaele’s flat.

Stefanoni also testified that she found Raffaele’s DNA on a bra clasp in the murder room. Collected 47 days after the murder, it had migrated across the bloody tile floor and was found under a dirty rug. Stefanoni has never explained how the DNA of at least three people could have ended up on that clasp–nor why it incrimanates only one person, Raffaele. Meanwhile, drifter Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the bra itself, on the victim and inside her body. He’d also left a bloody handprint on a pillow under the victim’s body.

Stefanoni isn’t used to anybody checking her paperwork. At pretrial the “independent expert” appointed by Judge Paolo Micheli was none other than her own boss, Renato Bionidi, who found her work flawless. During Amanda and Raffaele’s first trial in 2009, Judge Giancarlo Massei delivered a crushing blow to the defense when he said no to independent review of any evidence. He claimed the court had all the information it needed. Indeed, jurors never debated guilt or innocence, only whether the two defendants should get 30 years (life) or less. Massei handed out 26 years to Amanda; 25 to Raffaele.

January 22, 2011:Judge Hellmann tells the court that we know only one thing for certain: Meredith Kercher is dead. He swears in the two independent experts from Rome, giving them 90 days to investigate the bra clasp and knife. Dr. Conti asks to take the knife apart.

March 24, 2011: The Italian press reports sensational news. Neither bra clasp nor murder weapon can be retested, according to the two experts. Pending a review of Stefanoni’s results, they’re out as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

April 7, 2011: In a fax to Judge Hellmann, independent expert Dr. Conti emphasizes the importance of receiving all relevant data from the police lab, whether “found, or partially found, in the court records or acquisitions.” In other words: “everything integral to the investigation of the two items of evidence,” whether it had already been presented in court or not. The judge swiftly approves Conti’s request for key files.

The alleged murder weapon: an ordinary kitchen knife from Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. There is no proof that it was ever carried to the crime scene. Judge Giancarlo Massei claimed that Knox was carrying this knife in her cloth bag, because she worked in a dangerous neighborhood. However, she didn't go to work the night of the murder. No blood or DNA from the victim was found inside the cloth bag.

1. CD of the electropherograms relating to the bra clasp and knife deposed 10/8/2008 during preliminary hearings and found at Raffaele’s flat on Nov. 6, 2007.

2. CD RAW DATA (data relative to the general electrophoretic runs of the automatic sequencer).

3. All the transcriptions, in all the phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the CTP, including the documentation deposed (considerations and notes, including possible CDs).

4. CD film, photos, search reports on methods of checking evidence into custody, preservation, and transport to the police laboratory.

On April 20, 2011, Stefanoni send an “urgente” fax to the judge. She balks at producing the data and adds that the raw files request is too vague for her. The boldface and convoluted language below is hers, word for word:

In reference to the acquisition of the CD containing a collection of DNA profiles (in the form of electropherograms), copies of the same were presented and had already been deposed in the court records on 9/25/2008 by Judge Paolo Micheli of the Perugia Court, and that all of the electropherograms pertaining to the genetic profiles extrapolated by the technical analyses have been gathered into a separate attached book separate from the body of the report.

Too low: Stefanoni's handwritten notes from her tests on the famous murder weapon. If the machine said too low, doesn't that indicate not enough DNA? Not in the Rome lab.

In reference to the request of acquisition of CD RAW DATA, one is obligated to explain that the information in the form of this file in the sequencer is never an integral part of the technical report, as far as the object being tested by the forensic geneticist, namely the DNA profile, and that it is already reported in the electropherogram printout, connected to the technical report on which allof the useful date and an evaluation of the genetic profile are reported.

In addition, it is good to clarify that the files contained in the denominated sequencer “Sample File.fsa” contain subfolders denominated “Info,” “Raw Data” and “EPT Data” that do not allow any human intervention in order to modify and/or add data; and therefore, in this view, do not contribute to furnishing later elements to the genetic data evaluation.

Finally, the request asked for by the expert consultants relative to the acquisition of the CD RAW DATA appears incomplete in so much as the name of the “sample file” requested was not specified, without which the exact identification of the documented material the acquisition of which is asked for is not possible.

Cough up the files, Judge Hellmann immediately tells her in a terse, hand-written note that very same day. Resolve your own “perplexity,” he adds.

Dear Doctor Stefanoni,I received your faxed note dated April 20th and take note of the relevant content. I ask you, however, regarding the official experts to kindly give to them copies of your and my responses communicated at the same time, consigning directly to them what is of interest, useful to acquire with the goal of completing the investigations, subject to the clarification of the perplexity that you mention.

Amanda and Raffaele have been behind bars in Italy since Nov. 6, 2007. Stefanoni has not sent the files.

Dan Krane was asked to give his opinion about the release of such files in a separate legal matter. He wrote, “I believe that a defense expert cannot competently evaluate the results of an STR DNA test without having access to the test’s underlying electronic data. In my experience, review of electronic data has often led directly to the discovery of important problems or limitations in the STR testing, or to alternative theories of the evidence, that would not have been apparent based on a review of laboratory reports or other laboratory records… In my opinion, review of the electronic data is as important as review of the laboratory’s written notes…There is no legitimate reason for a laboratory to refuse a defendant’s request to examine the electronic data.” (bolding mine) Finally, this blog has previously noted that the ABA standards explicitly call for release of the electronic data files.

Point (2) is equally difficult to comprehend. Clearly Dr. Stefanoni understands that the electronic data files are being requested, yet apparently wants specific file names. It is difficult to see how the independent scientists would know the file naming convention used in Dr. Stefanoni’s lab. Who does Dr. Stefanoni think can provide the specific file names?

Here’s video of expert Patrizia Stefanoni coming into court on May 21, 2009, to nail the two college students on DNA evidence. We also see her at the crime scene in 2007. The clip ends with Raffaele’s super-lawyer, Giula Bongirono scoffing at the bra clasp DNA evidence against him. Proof, proof, but there is no proof, she says.

MURDER IN ITALY, my book on the spell-binding Amanda Knox case, is a Library Journal Bestseller. Winner of Best True Crime 2010 Editor’s Choice and Reader’s Choice awards. Called “a real-life murder mystery as terrifying and compelling as fiction,” it’s built on diary excerpts, wiretaps, court scenes, trial transcripts, first-hand experience and interviews with key players for all sides.

MURDER IN ITALY is online at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Indiebound and bookstores. It’s also a Kindle & ebook. I’ll blog about the Knox case until the final appeal.